When people ask for examples of institutional racism...

[K1levelgrappler]

It is rather pathetic that someone has to post an 83 page court judgement and post "read this and you'll find racism in it." Even after that, people can find arguments as to why the "evidence" provided is not convincing.

It should be mentioned Pan has not been a conservative poster for quite some time now. He gets more "progressive" by the day.

Amazing. Opposing voter suppression is now an inherently progressive position.

Sure why not. I'll own that any day of the week.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I get what you're saying - that the Republicans wouldn't be targeting these black voters if they were voting for Republicans. But that's exactly why it's racist.

What? That's exactly why it's NOT racist. You just admitted it's existence is not based on race. The only discriminating factor is voting.

 

[panamaican]

What? That's exactly why it's NOT racist.

Are they targeting everyone who votes Democrat?

Or are they targeting the black voters who vote Democrat?

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Are they targeting everyone who votes Democrat?

Or are they targeting the black voters who vote Democrat?

So they don't want to suppress all democratic votes, just the black ones?? If that is the accusation then that changes everything.

 

[panamaican]

So they don't want to suppress all democratic votes, just the black ones?? If that is the accusation then that changes everything.

That is the accusation. That they were trying to suppress the black votes by targeting those methods that black voters use. They didn't target any of the methods that non-black voters use. They didn't target the things that only Republicans used. They didn't target Democrats as a group.

They had a big list of how people registered to vote and how they voted and they specifically chose the methods favored by blacks for registration and voting for legislative change.

 

[mtron929]

So they don't want to suppress all democratic votes, just the black ones?? If that is the accusation then that changes everything.

Pretty much agreed. Most likely, the goal was to suppress democratic votes as much as possible with the simplest possible solution. And that happened to affect the black voters. The people in power went for the lowest hanging fruit and the black voters were collateral damage. As unfortunate as it is (and mind, you they can still vote as it is not too difficult to get a proper ID card!), it is a whole different story than targeting black voters just to mess with them or too put them down.

 

[mtron929]

That is the accusation. That they were trying to suppress the black votes by targeting those methods that black voters use. They didn't target any of the methods that non-black voters use. They didn't target the things that only Republicans used. They didn't target Democrats as a group.

They had a big list of how people registered to vote and how they voted and they specifically chose the methods favored by blacks for registration and voting for legislative change.

I just don't buy that but if you have enough of evidence to support your claim, then I would be curious to know. The most likely scenario is that the statistical analysis revealed that the blacks were the easiest target due to their relatively homogeneous voice. And thus, it took a few simple solution to target a lot of them, making them the lowest hanging fruit solution. If the statistical analysis revealed that it would have been easier to target the female voters in a specific way, I think that is what they would have done. Again, none of this is personal. It's just dirty politics.

 

[JDragon]

The discussion in here is puzzling.

The point here is not whether any individual measure is racist. The point is that out of a wide array of possible measures, only those were considered and voted into law that were known to have a disproportionate effect on Blacks.

Consider the following example.

A parliament looks at five issues:

1) Coming to election on foot or by bus instead of by car
2) Level of drug use
3) something else
4) something else
5) something else

3, 4 and 5 are issues that turn out to have no difference in the black and White demographic groups. Therefore, no changes are enacted.

However, there would be two changes:

1) Voting locations would be in remote places where no buses go and it is too far to walk. This would not be a racist measure in itself but would disproportionately affect Blacks because we would assume a lower level of car ownership in this example.

2) Furthermore, you would only get your voter ID if you pass a drug swipe test on election day. This would also not be a racist measure in itself but would also disproportionately affect Blacks because we would assume higher levels of drug use in these groups.

So again, the point is not that laws affect groups differently. The point is that only such measures were considered that could be reasonably be expected to have the most impact on Blacks.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

in general, i think racism against racial minorities occurs more than whites think it does, and less than racial minorities think it does lol.

the laws cited by the TS have been a big deal here in NC. what they were seeking to do was pretty obvious to everyone except complete partisans.

id also throw in the death penalty. well, people of color are consistently handed down harsher sentences, not just with capital crimes. i actually believe this to be a complicated form of de facto racism rather than the kkk operating the justice system, but its a serious issue imo.

 

[mtron929]

The discussion in here is puzzling.

The point here is not whether any individual measure is racist. The point is that out of a wide array of possible measures, only those were considered and voted into law that were known to have a disproportionate effect on Blacks.

Consider the following example.

A parliament looks at five issues:

1) Coming to election on foot or by bus instead of by car
2) Level of drug use
3) something else
4) something else
5) something else

3, 4 and 5 are issues that turn out to have no difference in the black and White demographic groups. Therefore, no changes are enacted.

However, there would be two changes:

1) Voting locations would be in remote places where no buses go and it is too far to walk. This would not be a racist measure in itself but would disproportionately affect Blacks because we would assume a lower level of car ownership in this example.

2) Furthermore, you would only get your voter ID if you pass a drug swipe test on election day. This would also not be a racist measure in itself but would also disproportionately affect Blacks because we would assume higher levels of drug use in these groups.

So again, the point is not that laws affect groups differently. The point is that only such measures were considered that could be reasonably be expected to have the most impact on Blacks.

But again, you seem to think that the ultimate end goal in all of this is to suppress the black voters. I and others contend that suppressing the black voters is just a means to gain the most votes. If these guys were given a better choice of suppressing the 55+ year old voters in a more simplistic way, that is the path that they would have chosen. But most likely, their statistical analysis showed that the easiest and the optimal solution was to target the black voters. It seems like this is semantics but I contend that it is not and these intentions do matter greatly. Because if the end game is to suppress the blacks and these types of sentiments are widespread, then this would be a big big issue and America would pretty much be a racist country. However, if the end game is to gain power under different contexts, then depending on circumstances, different segments of people can be affected. In Pan's example, it was the blacks. In other examples, it might be the poor. In some other example, it might be the old people. Or the young people. But this just illustrates the flaw in the system and is a totally different discussion that should not be framed under a racial discussion.

Hopefully, all of this makes sense.

 

[woodguyatl]

I don't want anyone's vote suppressed but requiring an ID like a driver's license or state ID is not racism.

Without proper identification the chances of voter fraud increase.

Voting should be protected as a sacred right for all. Why are we willing to encourage voter fraud by not requiring ID?

Dead people vote. Voters are bused in. Votes need to be protected

I'm sorry...but if requiring an ID deters people form voting then they don't care enough about voting

The North Carolina law accepted government issues drivers licenses as ID but did not accept government issues benefits cards (used more by African Americans) as ID.

 

[MicroBrew]

So yes, when you are asked about institutional racism you have zero fucking proof. Got it.

When I think about institutional racism I think about black only scholarships.
I think about Bill Clinton telling banks to loan to minorities at sub prime with shit credit.
I think about Harvard giving bonus points to the SAT scores of blacks and taking away points from asians.

I think about the real-----verifiable facts.
You like to FEEL about shit with no proof.

There are scholarships specifically for any number of groups.
Minorities include Asians and Hispanics and a lot of Hispanics are White.
Bonus SAT points are given to Hispanic also, many of whom are White.
Blacks are not even the largest recipient of Affirmative Action, though they are the ones everyone thinks of when AA is mentioned .

 

[nixkid]

It is cut back for everyone, not just blacks? How is this a racist law, if ALL early voting is eliminated?

You need to read the OP.

They conducted a study of voter behavior which included behavior based on race. The study found that blacks were much more likely to do early voting on Sundays (specifically because Sunday voting drives are a part of black voter outreach at churches). The court found that the state deliberately cut back on Sunday voting because of the disproportionate impact it would have on black voters.

So, I'll ask again, what is an legitimate reason for cutting back on early voting?

 

[Islam Imamate]

It is rather pathetic that someone has to post an 83 page court judgement and post "read this and you'll find racism in it." Even after that, people can find arguments as to why the "evidence" provided is not convincing.

He posted an article as well, the link is right there in the OP. But for some the article is too little detail and the court judgement too much, at that point what is pan to do?

It should be mentioned Pan has not been a conservative poster for quite some time now. He gets more "progressive" by the day.

So because he doesn't harp on about the same issues you do and *gasp* doesn't agree with you when it comes to race so he must be a progressive. What nonsense. This is like when people call Sam Harris, a self described liberal, a right winger because of what he says about Islam. Not everyone possesses a pathological need to disagree with progressives on every issue.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

 

[JDragon]

But again, you seem to think that the ultimate end goal in all of this is to suppress the black voters. I and others contend that suppressing the black voters is just a means to gain the most votes. If these guys were given a better choice of suppressing the 55+ year old voters in a more simplistic way, that is the path that they would have chosen. But most likely, their statistical analysis showed that the easiest and the optimal solution was to target the black voters. It seems like this is semantics but I contend that it is not and these intentions do matter greatly. Because if the end game is to suppress the blacks and these types of sentiments are widespread, then this would be a big big issue and America would pretty much be a racist country. However, if the end game is to gain power under different contexts, then depending on circumstances, different segments of people can be affected. In Pan's example, it was the blacks. In other examples, it might be the poor. In some other example, it might be the old people. Or the young people. But this just illustrates the flaw in the system and is a totally different discussion that should not be framed under a racial discussion.

Hopefully, all of this makes sense.

Well yeah - the Boers probably also only enacted racist measures to stabilize their rule.

 

[JosephDredd]

Listen, the exact changes don't really matter unless your goal is to challenge whether or not the court reached the wrong legal conclusion.

If that's the direction that you're heading then you're better off going straight to the legal opinion itself instead of 2nd and 3rd hand sources. Why argue over Slate's paraphrasing of a judicial opinion when you can challenge the opinion itself?

So it's 83 pages. If you're in this forum and, in this thread, I'm assuming you're intellectually curious enough to want more detail and not less.

You are going to be shocked by the responses this thread gets. I'm telling you right now.

*can only pretend to be sufficiently intellectual to dismiss something they don't agree with* *forming opinions based on fact involves too much work*

 

[nixkid]

You are going to be shocked by the responses this thread gets. I'm telling you right now.

*can only pretend to be sufficiently intellectual to dismiss something they don't agree with* *forming opinions based on fact involves too much work*

People were complaining that they had to read in the first couple of posts. Then you had posters come in and agree that you shouldn't have to read and if its not simple enough to be understood with a paragraph summary then it doesn't exist. Then you have hoards of people rushing in to make a comment about how Voter ID laws aren't racist even though that really isn't even what the thread is about.

That is the level of discourse on this board.

 

[JosephDredd]

People were complaining that they had to read in the first couple of posts. Then you had posters come in and agree that you shouldn't have to read and if its not simple enough to be understood with a paragraph summary then it doesn't exist. Then you have hoards of people rushing in to make a comment about how Voter ID laws aren't racist even though that really isn't even what the thread is about.

That is the level of discourse on this board.

I'm continuing through the thread and, yep, amazing stuff.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Interesting thread Pan, and thanks for broaching the topic.

Admittedly, I'm one of many here who doesn't have the time to give the 83 pages a thorough reading....

if your summary of it is true, then yes I would consider it "institutionalized racism." I just have some follow up questions..

I would ask, what type of IDs were being accepted, and which ones were deemed as not acceptable...


How difficult is it to obtain these "accepted" forms of ID?